So I was watching Bill O'Reilly last night, and Gary Bauer was on. He made the claim that Reagan would have been in favor of an amendment banning gay marriage. O'Reilly disagreed, saying we cannot know that, since Reagan did not speak on the subject.
Bauer supported his point by saying that Reagan wrote a whole book against abortion. And somehow, Bauer seems to have made the connection in his mind that, if a person is against abortion, they must be in favor of banning gay marriage.
These are two completely different issues, and O'Reilly said as much, although he didn't explain why. So I decided I would explain why, here on my blog. Don't worry, this shorter and simpler than my prior posts.
Many of us believe that government does too much to control people, and we want it to do less. But some only want less control financially, while others want less control socially. Many of us, however, want less control altogether.
It is all about the role. Government has one simple role: to protect us from those who would bring us physical harm. Gay marriage does not directly physically harm anyone. The fact is, in my opinion, marriage belongs to the church, anyway, not the government, and can you imagine the outrage if someone wanted an amendment banning gay baptism? It's none of the government's business who gets baptized, and it is likewise none of their business, morally, who gets married.
But I digress. Back on point, gay marriage does not bring physical harm to another, and abortion does. It's that simple. Banning abortion is within the role of government. Banning gay marriage (or really, having anything at all to say about marriage of any sort), is outside the realm of the role of government.
God gave us free will -- the ability to obery Him and the ability to disobey Him, so we could choose to do the right thing. How is it that some people don't think God did enough, and they want government to take it further?
No comments:
Post a Comment